If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"Non Sequitur" is a popular comic that runs daily in about 800 newspapers, including this one. But the "Non Sequitur" cartoon that appeared in last Sunday's Post was not the one creator Wiley Miller drew for that day.

Editors at The Post and many other papers pulled the cartoon and replaced it with one that had appeared previously. They were concerned it might offend and provoke some Post readers, especially Muslims.Especially Muslims? Especially? As in, there were many groups who might be offended, but one groups stood out? Who else were they afraid of offending? Who else would take offense? Were they afraid of an angry letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury? Puh-lease. This is dhimmitude.

Miller is known for social satire. But at first glance, the single-panel cartoon he drew for last Sunday seems benign. It is a bucolic scene imitating the best-selling children's book "Where's Waldo?" A grassy park is jammed with activity. Animals frolic. Children buy ice cream. Adults stroll and sunbathe. A caption reads: "Where's Muhammad?" Actually, it says "Picture book title voted least likely to find a publisher... 'Where's Muhamed?'" You know, because publishers are afraid of getting their heads hacked off by people who might be offended, especially one group, as previously mentioned, although it's a religion of peace, really, and that's why the Post won't single them out. Besdies, How sure are you that we can rule out the possibility of sword-weilding Huegenots?

Miller's cartoon is clearly a satirical reference to the global furor that ensued in 2006 after a Danish newspaper invited cartoonists to draw the prophet Muhammad as they see him. After the cartoons were published, Muslims in many countries demonstrated against what they viewed as the lampooning of Islam's holiest figure. And we proved his point by our gutless response to these cartoons.

Miller's Sunday drawing also keyed on "Everybody Draw Muhammad Day!," a free-speech protest this year by cartoonists responding to what was widely interpreted as a death threat from an Islamic cleric against two animators who depicted Muhammad wearing a bear suit in an episode of the "South Park" television show. If enough cartoonists drew Muhammad, protest organizers reasoned, it would be impractical to threaten all of them. Instead, they threatened the one who had the idea, and she is now doodling from a secure, undisclosed location. OTOH, the WAPO's editors live in very nice homes in and around Washington. They're not about to move into a cave. Rest assured, we got the message.

What is clever about last Sunday's "Where's Muhammad?" comic is that the prophet does not appear in it. But, better safe than sorry. My head is staying on my neck, thank you.

Still, Style editor Ned Martel said he decided to yank it, after conferring with others, including Executive Editor Marcus W. Brauchli, because "it seemed a deliberate provocation without a clear message." He added that "the point of the joke was not immediately clear" and that readers might think that Muhammad was somewhere in the drawing. Yeah, you'd never want to run a cartoon that didn't have a clear message joke. That's why the Post runs Cathy. We can always tell the point of her jokes. Just look at that cellulite! Now that's comedy! And nobody wants to behead Cathy Guisewite. Okay, except for the men who have read her whiny crap, but nobody is going to actually go out and do it. OTOH, Muslims will behead guys who publish cartoons that they don't like.

Some readers accused The Post of censorship. "Cowards," e-mailed John D. Stackpole of Fort Washington, one of several who used that word. Only several?

Miller is fuming. The award-winning cartoonist, who lives in Maine, told me the cartoon was meant to satirize "the insanity of an entire group of people rioting and putting out a hit list over cartoons," as well as "media cowering in fear of printing any cartoon that contains the word 'Muhammad.' "Looks like you made your point, even if the editors claim that they can't see it.

"The wonderful irony [is that] great newspapers like The Washington Post, that took on Nixon . . . run in fear of this very tame cartoon, thus validating the accuracy of the satire," he said by e-mail. I guess that Nixon wasn't as much a threat to the Post's editorial staff as a couple of imams in caves are. Kind of tells you whose enemies list is the more dangerous to be on, doesn't it?

Through an apparent oversight, the "Where's Muhammad?" cartoon was put on The Post's Web site. Brauchli said he was unaware, adding, "Ideally, we wouldn't have done that if we withheld it from print." Please don't behead us!!! We are but poor dhimmi news editors, unworthy of the edges of your blades. Spare us, oh sons of the prophet (MPUH)!

Oh, and since I'm not a cowardly rubber stamp of an editor at Democratic Party newsletter masquerading as a newspaper, I'll reproduce the cartoon here. Remember this the next time somebody applauds the "courage" of our media, which claims to speak truth to power, but in reality can't even joke about it for fear of guys in caves coming after them.

Now you've done it! Look who's coming for you!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1aSMhAAWg8&feature=fvst
Seriously, though, if the Washington Post can't bring itself to publish a cartoon in which Mohammed doesn't even appear for fear of retaliation, what else can't the bring themselves to publish? Does this impact their coverage of things like the Ground Zero Mosque? The Sharia War? Female Genital Mutilation and honor killings in Muslim countries? Iran's stoning of women?

Does the MSM shrink from providing critical information about the nature of our enemies? And is that why so many consumers of their product are complacent or contemptuous of the dangers posed by Islamic radicals?